Private Property Vs Equality

banaman

I came across this quote the other day, attributed to Adam Smith, "the father of economics"

He said "a defence of private property entails, apparently, an acceptance of inequality"

I thought about this and conclude that his supposition is true because
If i own something then i am denying anyone/everyone else the ability to own that object. no matter how many similar ones may exist they are NOT that one object.
Therefore this creates an inequality between me (who has said object) and the rest of you who don't.
I am not arguing the rights and wrongs of private property merely that private property entails inequality.

SkepticOne

What if everyone owns an equal amount of private property e.g. everyone has a similar house and car, clothes etc?

DadaKopf

Funny thing about Adam Smith: he wasn't so liberal as neoliberalis claim he was. He fully understood the moral obligation and indeed need for redistribution, or at least, ameliorisation of inequality in the pursuit of justice and fairness.

SkepticOne wrote:

What if everyone owns an equal amount of private property e.g. everyone has a similar house and car, clothes etc?

In a different regime, maybe. In Adam Smith's regime, there were classes of non-landowning labourers, even slavery!. Ugly inequality.

Victor

Free is theft - if something is free, it ends up being abused, overused and wasted. There must be some expense to the user, preferably as close to the point of consumption as possible.

Property is theft - the traditional socialist argument.

A balance needs to be struck between the two.

banaman

SkepticOne wrote:

What if everyone owns an equal amount of private property e.g. everyone has a similar house and car, clothes etc?

That's exactly my point they are SIMILAR but not the SAME therefore the things owned are not equal merely similar.

DadaKopf

So you're saying people will find ways to differentiate themselves from others whatever the regime?

SkepticOne

banaman wrote:

That's exactly my point they are SIMILAR but not the SAME therefore the things owned are not equal merely similar.

I don't think that is what most people mean by inequality. I think they mean that one person has two houses whereas another has none, not one person has a house of different design to another.

Tricity Bendix

DadaKopf wrote:

So you're saying people will find ways to differentiate themselves from others whatever the regime?

I would have thought that would be obvious. People will always want to express themselves as individuals. Whether this be an expression of social status or personal preference or innate ability, no two of us will ever be alike.

DadaKopf

Well done.

I was actually simplifying/restating the OP's post.

silverharp

Equality is not the cornerstone of human nature, which to me explains why communism could not possibly work, it simply went against human nature.

Tricity Bendix

DadaKopf wrote:

Well done.

I was actually simplifying/restating the OP's post.

Its rather hard to distinguish tone over an internet forum.

DadaKopf

silverharp wrote:

Equality is not the cornerstone of human nature, which to me explains why communism could not possibly work, it simply went against human nature.

:rolleyes: Here we go again.

silverharp

DadaKopf wrote:

:rolleyes: Here we go again.

You will have to enlighten me, first post on this board, I obviously have a very tired view of this subject

DadaKopf

It's just that it's the stock answer/comment for things like this. Kind of exasperating having to explain how it's a really problematic - and underinformed - view.

Usually goes something like "You know what, communism failed because it goes against human nature."
- "Really? Can you define human nature?"
- "Not really, but it's what we have now, capitalism or something."
- "Oh, really? And capitalism works, does it? How about 'human nature' is a socially constructed concept and changes over time?"
- "Well, we're essentially selfish, and Communism tried to abolish self-interest, but capitalism reflects reality where people are allowed to be selfish."
- "But people also display acts of altruism..."

Ad infinitum. A perfectly interesting discussion - potentially at least - smothered by a descent into tired, predictable positions where there's no genuine discourse, where no one has to think too much. The way the topic might be interesting is to look at humans' motives to differentiate each other and groups regardless of socio-political system, regardless of era and how boundaries (physical and cultural) as a general concept seem constant, but their content and contexts shift radically.

Like, thanks for joining the board and all, but I seriously think it's time that people begin to see the world a little more critically - basically: there's nothing we can do, it's all been tried, no point being critical of the world today, doesn't get us anywhere, the world is the best we've got.

Tell that to someone living on a dollar a day.

SkepticOne

I think the actual details of human nature are the subject of science (psychology etc.) not philosophy. Perhaps it is indeed best not to get into a debate about it here, tempting though it is.

A philosophical question might however be: does human nature exist? Can there be such a thing as human nature? Existentialists like Satre believed that there was no such thing as human nature since it was incompatible with the idea of freedom and the non-existence of God.

Would you be of this view, DadaKopf?

Dave3x

'human nature' is such a subjective term. I am a human, and I possess a particular nature which is particular to myself- this would be a human nature, no?

Perhaps it could be conceded that human nature is that set of characteristics which is essential to every human- e.g., self interest (if we were to take the aforementioned viewpoint).

That said, I've been out of college for 3 months. My logic is probably rusty and deeply flawed as ever.

DadaKopf

SkepticOne wrote:

I think the actual details of human nature are the subject of science (psychology etc.) not philosophy. Perhaps it is indeed best not to get into a debate about it here, tempting though it is.

A philosophical question might however be: does human nature exist? Can there be such a thing as human nature? Existentialists like Satre believed that there was no such thing as human nature since it was incompatible with the idea of freedom and the non-existence of God.

Would you be of this view, DadaKopf?

Hmmm, that's an interesting discussion, why not start a new thread?

I think natural sciences and social sciences are very different. Putting it bluntly, social science is 'philosophy' treated as if it were natural science. To put it another way, natural science is centred on measurement, and social science tries to measure the unmeasurable.

I suppose the distinction may be down to the forms of data. Natural science is effectively based on rationalist scientific methodologies which build theories around observable and quantifiable phenomena in an attempt to understand the world. Social science tries to measure things such as 'happiness' (utility in economics, or psychology), whether war is just, and so on; social sciences take non-physical data and treat them as quantifiable objects of observation.

From the 1950s, natural science came under scrutiny because many came to believe that it limited the scope of enquiry - particularly the social science side - and, rather than reasoning out research questions, 'instrumental reasoning' meant that sciences actually operated by deciding on a particular conclusion and filling in the gaps. Sciences are not so critical. These critiques were motivated by a concern that 'rationalist ideology' - or rationalist, scientific discourses - were having social effects that were negative in terms of values we hold dear, particularly liberty. It could therefore be argued that natural sciences are not so inert in the sense that they cannot encapsulate the totality of 'human nature', and that both natural and social sciences - products of power relations in society - produce effects which, it could be argued deny us our 'true human nature', or (as I'm unconfortable with the term), the freedom to determine our own nature as human beings. In many senses, this is the case of all paradigms.

So, regarding human nature, I think it's a bit of a gordian knot. In a sense, it's a question at two or more levels. Perhaps there is a 'human nature' in the sense that human beings are of nature like any other organism. 'Human Nature' is therefore disinterested, unstructured, it just is, whatever it is. Can we answer this question? I doubt it. Then there is 'human nature', a collective of concepts and cultural institutions created by people in the attempt to observe this 'true human nature'.

But which affects which? This grasping out has effects for ourselves, society and the planet in the sense that such ideas structure the social world and affect other organisms on the planet, which in turn may affect our nature.

So, I should say that, in the social realm, I'm extremely skeptical of appeals to 'human nature' because, firstly, we don't and probably can't know what 'it' is, and secondly, discourses claiming knowledge of human nature are at best incomplete and at worst, dangerous. Ask, for example, a poor farmer working in Malawi what his experience of free-market economics is and how happy he is that he's realised his human nature.

I should say, though, that I don't condemn social science. It's useful, it results in good things, but also there are consequences.

OK, so what the hell am I saying? I dunno, but I still think philosophy is of huge value - science alone cannot answer everything. It simply hasn't delivered on its promise. In fact, instead of science delivering us total knowledge of the universe, a universal holistic picture, it's actually been shattered into hundreds, thousands, of discreet disciplines few of whom talk to each other.

What we need is more interdisciplinary work, or the destruction of disciplines.

Right, last comment. I've become very interested in the works of Deleuze and Guattari. They reckon that there are three discreet realms of thought: Science, Philosophy and Art. They are discreet because they are built on four different structuring organisms of human existence. Science deals with quantification. Philosophy deals with concepts. Art deals with percepts and affects (feelings). While the three realms are incompatible, they frequently overlap, intermix. For example, perhaps marketing is so successful because it mixes science (the products) with philosophy (economics & psychology) and art (advertising). The mix of these is determined by various factors including power.

Deleuze and Guattari's characterisation of this is the 'rhyzome' - knowledge is not a tree with roots, a trunk, branches and leaves, it's a mushroom-like structure that spreads out horizontally underground, popping up through the soil here and there. Make sense? Crazy? I think it's deadly.

biko

banaman wrote:

I came across this quote the other day, attributed to Adam Smith, "the father of economics"

He said "a defence of private property entails, apparently, an acceptance of inequality"

I thought about this and conclude that his supposition is true because
If i own something then i am denying anyone/everyone else the ability to own that object. no matter how many similar ones may exist they are NOT that one object.
Therefore this creates an inequality between me (who has said object) and the rest of you who don't.
I am not arguing the rights and wrongs of private property merely that private property entails inequality.

It's difficult to discuss this without becoming political (cap v comm) or nature/nurture on greed etc.

The property you possess only creates an inequality between you and me if I desire your object and I am willing to negotiate for it. If I also possess a desirable object we can barter.

I think Adam Smith was referring to upper classes/church owning the land and arrendors having to pay rent, therefore always being indebted to the landlord.

"If the work I do means no work for you, then something must be wrong".

Sgt. Sensible

In Gaelic society, to prevent the conflict and abuse of power that accompanies economic inequity, the land would be periodically collectivised then redistributed equally between clan members. Society itself was quite hierachical but was structured to allow social mobility. I haven't found more than a couple of lines about it in any history book I've read unfortunately.

DadaKopf

But isn't this thread about the nature of inequality and/or difference?

biko

It's about "whether a defence of private property entails an acceptance of inequality".
Ergo, the same people that defend the right to private possesions are also against a totally equal society - at least on some level.

silverharp

biko wrote:

It's about "whether a defence of private property entails an acceptance of inequality".
Ergo, the same people that defend the right to private possesions are also against a totally equal society - at least on some level.

Seems reasonable, however define "equal". if meant to mean more akin to equal before the law or fairness then would disagree


Like the Irish example the old Jewish concept of the Jubilee was an interesting mechanism of levelling the playing field every so often

Victor

"Equal" needs to also be viewed within hte concept of "balance".

DadaKopf

Or, "equal" needs to be viewed within the concept of "social justice". Also, more than "justice as fairness" IMHO.

Demetrius

banaman wrote:

I came across this quote the other day, attributed to Adam Smith, "the father of economics"

He said "a defence of private property entails, apparently, an acceptance of inequality"

I thought about this and conclude that his supposition is true because
If i own something then i am denying anyone/everyone else the ability to own that object. no matter how many similar ones may exist they are NOT that one object.
Therefore this creates an inequality between me (who has said object) and the rest of you who don't.
I am not arguing the rights and wrongs of private property merely that private property entails inequality.

That is interesting.

Feel free mods to hush me up for going off topic, but could you think along similiar lines with regard to ability and IQ? If someone was born with a very high IQ and great intellectual promise which would benefit that entire community, would there be an onus on the individual to share that wealth?

For instance, if he/she was given a very good education by the community, and (s)he had the ability to...invent things, say, wouldn't inequality exist thereafter if (s)he chose not to share his/her knowledge?

Isn't the spectrum of inherent ability a strain of inequality as well, never mind "personal property" such as land and objects?

Should people who are very intelligent and have acquired knowledge, share that very personal property with others? For instance, someone in a hunter-gatherer society who has learned that "germs" cause infection doesn't share that knowledge with the society's midwife, and yet uses that knowledge himself when aiding his wife in birthing?:)


(This isn't coming out very well as I am very tired and haven't slept in a while:o )

Playboy

I think you might find Nozick interesting Demetrius

Nozick's Entitlement Theory is comprised of 3 main principles:

1. A principle of transfer - whatever is justly acquired may be freely transferred.


2. A principle of just initial acquisition - an account of how people first come to own common property.


3. A principle of rectification of injustice - how to deal with holdings if unjustly acquired or transferred.


(a) People are entitled to their natural assets.

(b) If people are entitled to something, they are entitled to whatever flows from it (via specified types of processes).

(c) People's holdings flow from their natural assets.

Therefore,

(d) People are entitled to their holdings.

(e) If people are entitled to something, then they ought to have it (and this overrides any presumption of equality there may be about holdings)



Libertarianism holds that agents are, at least initially, full self-owners. Agents are full self-owners just in case they own themselves in just the same way that they can fully own inanimate objects. This full private ownership of a person or thing includes

(1) full control rights over (to grant or deny permission for) the use of the person or thing,

(2) a full immunity to the non-consensual loss of any of the rights of ownership as long as one does not violate the rights of others,

(3) full power to transfer all these rights to others (by sale, rental, gift, or loan),

(4) a full right to compensation if someone violates any of these rights.


John Rawls also gives quite good counter arguments against this theory.